Controversy and Cooperation Among Rightly Dividing Theologians

Contention shows up in any group of people who take ideas seriously. When people think carefully and care deeply about theology, disagreements are inevitable. This is true in every theological camp, including those who practice right division. The right dividing community is not monolithic; there are a variety of positions on many secondary issues. Because of that, some believers are quick to separate not only from traditional systems, but also from other right dividers who do not align with them on every point.

Some measure of disagreement is normal and can even be healthy. The problem is when we elevate relatively minor disagreements to the level of primary separation, while ignoring or tolerating much more serious doctrinal problems elsewhere. For example, believers may divide sharply over the use of the term “saints,” or over detailed timing schemes in Acts, while giving little attention to weightier matters such as the nature of the gospel, the definition of the Bible, or the identity and purpose of the church. This kind of misaligned contentiousness is unhealthy.

With that in mind, the question is whether there are any theological issues that would, or should, prevent fellowship with other right dividers, assuming they are generally orthodox in the core truths of the Christian faith.

subsection*Basic Orthodoxy as a Starting Assumption

To answer responsibly, it is important to state a basic assumption. When I speak of “other right dividers,” I am assuming they have not abandoned foundational Christian truths. That is, they hold to:

• The existence of the eternal God, and that the Son and the Spirit are likewise eternal.
• God as the creator of all things.
• Humanity as created by God and fallen in sin.
• Salvation as a gift of God by grace through faith, not of works.

If someone denies such basics—if they reject the eternal Son, or deny God as creator, or deny salvation by grace through faith—they are outside the bounds of what I would call orthodox Christianity. At that point the issue is not simply “right division,” but a more fundamental departure from the faith.

The question, however, concerns those who are orthodox in this broader sense and who also identify as right dividers, yet differ from me or from one another on the details of right division.

subsection*Differing Without “Marking and Avoiding”

Within that assumption, my general answer is that I do not believe most differences in right division should result in breaking fellowship. There are many right dividers with whom I strongly disagree on specific issues, but I would not consider them enemies of the gospel or individuals to be reflexively “marked and avoided.”

Examples of such disagreements include:

• Different positions on water baptism (its necessity, meaning, or current applicability).
• Different positions on the Lord’s Supper.
• Different Acts positions (e.g., mid-Acts versus Acts 28).

On matters like these, I might decide not to invite a particular teacher to speak at my conference, or I might choose not to publish his books, or not to collaborate in an official ministry partnership. That is a matter of prudence and stewardship. But that is not the same as declaring that the person is to be “marked and avoided” as a dangerous false teacher to be cut off from all fellowship.

In most such cases, I can still appreciate that the person is committed to Scripture, is attempting to handle it carefully, and may have something from which I can learn—even if I ultimately disagree. Disagreement on secondary or even tertiary issues of right division does not, in itself, cancel Christian fellowship.

subsection*When Separation Becomes Necessary

There are, however, doctrinal trajectories that do move beyond intra–right division differences into more serious error. Some who began within right division have drifted into positions such as:

Universalism (the idea that all will ultimately be saved). Annihilationism or a denial of eternal conscious punishment. Variants of “soul sleep” that effectively deny a conscious intermediate state and minimize or undermine the seriousness of final judgment.

These positions go beyond a debate over the timeline of dispensations or the place of Israel and the church. They touch directly on the nature of salvation, judgment, and the eternal state. While such ideas may have developed out of a right division framework for some, they are not required by right division, and many others arrive at them without any dispensational commitments at all.

If a right dividing teacher or church adopts such doctrines and makes them integral to their teaching, I would be very hesitant to associate myself with that ministry in any formal way. For example:

I would not look for a church that teaches universalism, annihilationism, or a denial of eternal punishment. I would not agree to speak at a conference that is built around the promotion of those doctrines.

There could be limited, carefully defined exceptions, such as a formal debate or a conference explicitly designed to examine and refute those views, where my role would be to present the opposing position and make clear my disagreement. Even then, I would insist that my stance be understood up front.

subsection*Levels of Association

It is useful to distinguish levels of association:

Personal fellowship : I can welcome into my congregation people who hold a variety of views, including some I consider mistaken or even serious errors, provided they are not in leadership and are willing to hear and consider biblical teaching. Churches naturally contain individuals at many different stages of growth and with many different blind spots. I do not require complete theological alignment for someone to attend or join. Collaborative ministry : This is different. When I share a platform, co-sponsor an event, or lend my name to a project, I am, in effect, publicly endorsing the shared message or at least signaling that I am comfortable being identified with it. In such cases, I am more selective. If a teacher is actively advocating universalism or denying eternal conscious punishment, I would not want my name or ministry tied to that work.

So while I may be personally friendly toward someone who holds problematic views, and even welcome them as a learner in my congregation, I draw a sharper line when it comes to cooperative ministry or public endorsement.

subsection*Misplaced Rigidity Among Right Dividers

Within right division circles there is sometimes a tendency to divide most sharply over the issues closest to home—those that separate one right divider from another—while paying comparatively little attention to much larger doctrinal problems outside the camp.

For instance, I have encountered situations where:

My moderate right dividing view on water baptism, combined with the fact that I pastor a Baptist church, has led some right dividers to consider me unwelcome in their circles. My willingness to consult Hebrew and Greek and not adopt a strict “King James only” position has led others to “mark and avoid” me, even though we are in near total agreement on the core theology of right division and soteriology.

Meanwhile, those same critics rarely if ever speak publicly against sacramental systems that teach infant baptism for salvation, or against churches that preach a works-tinged gospel, or against translations that depart materially from the text they themselves consider authoritative.

My concern here is not to complain about being excluded; each group has the prerogative to define its own boundaries. The larger concern is that our energy can be consumed by internecine battles among those who are 95–99% in agreement, while neglecting to address theological systems that obscure or corrupt the gospel itself.

subsection*The Value of Robust Disagreement

There is a difference between unnecessary division and vigorous disagreement. I believe there is room, and even a need, for robust, candid theological debate—sometimes strong, even combative in tone—provided it is done in a context where both sides are committed to Scripture and are willing to let the text rule.

Sharpening often comes through conflict. When believers who differ on important interpretive questions are willing to sit together with the text, lay out their arguments, challenge each other’s exegesis, and let the audience test all things, the result can be growth for everyone involved. The problem in much of contemporary Christian culture is that we are often too fragile for that kind of engagement. We split into smaller and smaller enclaves, each preserving its own set of assumptions, and avoid hard discussion that might actually correct us.

So I am not advocating a sentimental unity that ignores real differences. I am advocating that we reserve separation for genuinely serious departures—errors that compromise the gospel, the character of God, or the authority and clarity of Scripture—and that we treat other disagreements as areas where we may debate vigorously, even publicly, without necessarily breaking fellowship.

subsection*Summary of When I Would and Would Not Separate

Putting it all together, and staying within the question’s frame of reference:

I would not separate from a right divider solely because: beginitemize He holds a different Acts position (mid-Acts vs. Acts 28). He differs on the details of water baptism or the Lord’s Supper. He uses a different approach to certain terms or labels (e.g., “saints”). He is more or less strict about Bible translations, while remaining committed to an orthodox view of inspiration and authority.

item I would strongly limit association and likely decline cooperative ministry with a right divider who:

Advocates universalism or something close to it. Denies or seriously minimizes eternal conscious punishment. Embraces a doctrinal system that effectively undercuts the seriousness of judgment and the urgency of salvation.

enditemize

Even then, I would still interact kindly with such a person at a personal level and be willing to discuss Scripture with them. My concern is the public identification of ministries, not the refusal to speak or relate as fellow human beings.

In most other cases within right division, I believe fellowship can continue, even as we debate, challenge, and seek to refine one another’s thinking from the text.